The Christian Bible condones slavery explicitly in numerous passages. One of those reference often by slave owners in the Antebellum South comes from the story of Noah.
Genesis 9:24-27
9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
The book of Joshua also demonstrates the Christian god’s support of slavery:
9:27 And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.
In fact, there are numerous biblical instructions on how to acquire slaves, making it clear that buying people for money is perfectly acceptable.
Exodus 21:2-7
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Leviticus 22:10-11
22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Or slaves can be taken in war.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Leviticus goes on to make it clear that slaves are inheritable possessions.
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
There are also many biblical instructions on how to treat slaves. Genesis 16:6-9 says that angels will force slaves to return to their owners.
16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
Beating slaves as long as they don’t die immediately is perfectly fine.
Exodus 21:20-21
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Leviticus shows that slaves are property, not covered by the laws protecting other people.
19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
The New Testament doesn’t fare any better. Slavery is explicitly condoned in many places.
Luke 12:46-47
12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 17:7-9
17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
1 Corinthians 7:21-22
7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
Ephesians 6:5 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Colossians 3:22 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
Titus 2:9-10
2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Nowhere in the Christian Bible is slavery explicitly condemned nor are any of the verses that explicitly support the practice repudiated. Of course, numerous verses are interpreted to be anti-slavery. The fact that both slavery proponents and abolitionists were able to quote scripture in support of their views demonstrates clearly that the bible is, at best, ambiguous. Surely a book intended to provide moral guidance could have found room in the Ten Commandments for “Thou shalt not own slaves.”
The rational conclusion is that the bible is an amalgamation of writings by many different men, each with his own political goals and views on morality. It is only those who hold it to be the inerrant word of their god who find themselves in the position of attempting to defend the odious passages that clearly support slavery. That attempted defense is a blatant and appalling demonstration of religious belief overriding common decency and empathy.
Tom,
Please note the highlighted words below, right there in the text you are trying so hard to ignore:
Your attempts at whitewashing are obvious and pitiful.
@ Keiths
I think part of the problem here is that you are quoting from one book alone – Leviticus which I agree with you reads harshly BUT (and this is the important bit) contradicts what is said in Exodus and in Deuteronomy. The Bible contradicts itself – who would have thought!? 😉 ITMT, it appears that scholars have engaged in debates not too dissimilar to ours.
I found your challenge intriguing and did some extra research on my own. I think you will find the following very illuminating and informative.
http://tinyurl.com/gvs24fj
I am gratified to read that my take was correct all along and that the Leviticus reference you cite needs to be read in context, in order to be interpreted correctly. I think we both agree that ” the definitive correct answer” is defined as interpretation and practice as opposed to quasi-unclear literalist translations of ancient writing. I find it more than a little ironic that you are more than a little guilty of the very silliness you accuse Fifth & Mung.
In any case, that would explain why many translations in fact do not translate דבע as “slave” but rather “bondsman” and sometimes even “servant”. The term “slave” is really inappropriate given interpretation and practice (especially in deference to Exodus and Deuteronomy).
I stand by everything I have written.
best regards
Tom,
That’s a mistake, because what you wrote is obviously wrong:
The Leviticus passage demonstrates your error.
Tom:
Um, Tom — the source you cite confirms that you got it wrong:
The Leviticus passage refers specifically to non-Israelite slaves. You fell prey to exactly the confusion your cited author warns against.
Keiths – I do not understand why you are being so obtuse about this!
Starting first with Jewish slaves:
Forever?
And again later
Even your own Leviticus is quite clear:
Clearly – everything I have said about servitude of Jews was NOT in error.
As mentioned earlier (and again we are repeating ourselves) that still leaves open the question of servitude of non-Jews. The means we need to understand the status of Ger Teshuva and Ger Tzedek and what these terms mean exactly. And again Torah is quite emphatic that “the stranger” (any stranger) is to be treated with kindness and in fact these rules ultimately applied to the non-Jew.
Remember what I said about the Oral Law. Talmud required Jewish slave owners to try to convert non-Jewish slaves to Judaism intending the leniency described above to apply even to “non-Israelite slaves”. What I say must be true because Torah is quite explicit about Jews’ obligations to non-Jews:
Again deferring to your preferred source,
And again
I mentioned Avram’s household and how non-Jews non-family members were treated as one of the family not to mention my previous citation of Ruth and Naomi.
So – I did not get it wrong and I am not in error. Really, let’s put this one to rest.
Best regards
Seems evil to me. Sounds like allowing them to have families is a hook to keep them as slaves forever. Who would exchange their family for freedom?
Evil through and through.
I feel like I am reliving Bill Murray’s role in the movie Groundhog Day!
The Hebrew Testament is quite explicit about a Jew’s obligation to widows, orphans and the poor.
So-called “slaves”, for lack of a better word lived within the family circle and ate the same food as their “masters” (in fact, were to be served their meals before their masters). As mentioned earlier – a far better gig than being a servant in an English Manor.
So bottom line: yes the slave (from love for his master) could volunteer to perpetual bondage instead of being released with a generous severance package on the seventh year (no I am not making this up)… but many did not choose to do so.
This arrangement of perpetual bondage “for ever” was frowned upon and discouraged. But even “for ever” was not forever.
… because there were TWO resets: in the 7th year (as just mentioned) which could be declined by the slave who preferred to stay in the master’s house, and again in the 7X7 = 49 year (Jubilee) where again all obligations were absolved (even those perpetually bonded slaves) and all were allowed to be free.
The fact that many opted to stay with their so-called masters spoke volumes regarding the treatment of a status what really requires a different translation that the term “slave”
As a matter of fact, many translations do NOT translate עָ֫בֶד as “slave” but rather employ different terms (attendants, bondsmen, servants) as more appropriate. So it could be argued (if I were be permitted to be as obtuse as my gainsayers) that the Old Testament (at least Torah) does NOT endorse slavery.
Can we move on?
You have made a compelling case. Much more so then FMM’s.
Estimates vary, but IIRC 36 years was how long he spent in the loop. I doubt you’ve achieved that yet 😛
Can we get an interpretation of the word “property” as it applies to the case of beating one’s servant mostly to death?
Torah/Talmud is very clear on that particular point. Physical abuse of a עבד was a serious infraction to be severely punished not to mention garnering automatic “liberty” of the עבד together with compensation.
Simply put, the practice of slavery in the American South was not “Biblical”… mind you the Bible could be twisted out of context to justify countless crimes. My particular “favorite” would be the citation of 2 Timothy 2:19 during the massacre at Béziers,
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
TomMueller,
You said that yesterday … !
One person owning another is abhorrent, however finely you parse it. Biblical or otherwise. Treated ‘well’ or not.
Agreed! … but consider the alternative. There was no welfare state in Biblical times and the Gentiles simply allowed the destitute to perish. Jews considered it an obligation to provide life’s basic needs to any and all. It would take me quite a long time to list ALL the references, so please take my word for it.
I once (in a previous lifetime) remember this question being discussed by a very learned rabbi who expounded eloquently from the bima. Simply put – the ancient Israelites lived in harsh times and their practices were VERY enlightened compared to their neighbors.
Remember also what I said about “Oral Law” and remember also that there was no Biblical Canon in those days. Simply put, the Hebrew Bible was an ongoing “work-in-progress” subject to much interpretative redaction if not outright editorial rewriting. That would explain much of the contradictions found therein as Jewish belief evolved into ever more enlightened practice.
Of course, I can only imagine the chagrined outrage of some present who would prefer to believe in some fictional inerrancy not founded in fact.
Before taking my leave… I thought I would mention in passing that the Pathan/Pashtun tribes straddling Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir may represent an atavistic version of Judaism (circa 722 BCE) that did not benefit from Oral Law given their dispersal as one of the Lost Ten Tribes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/losttribes2.html#tribal
Imagine, the Taliban may represent a more “authentic” version of Judaism than currently in vogue in Jerusalem.
Let’s call this my random act of mischief. 😉 Actually – I just wanted to emphasize the importance of the Oral Law wrt the Judaism as a work in progress (i.e. the evolution of faith)
Hang around! It’s been very interesting.
Growing up in the south, I’ve heard all kinds of rationalizations for slavery, including the argument that the Africans who were brought to America were much better off than those left behind, and particularly the descendants of slaves.
But I guess the discussion has mostly been, not about the merits of slavery as an institution, but about slavery and indenture as institutions sanctioned by God. That’s really the part that seems incongruous.
Greatly appreciate your input here Tom! Thanks!
1 Timothy 2:12 is always fun to quote when it is a woman proselytizing.
Not just impossible, but internally contradictory. Almost as though two different stories were crammed together.
Good luck convincing fifthmonarchyman and other fundamentalists of that, though.
Do you or do you not consider the bible to be inerrant? Are you now admitting that there are contradictions in the bible?
In other words, you want to simply ignore the parts of the bible that demonstrate it to be a very poor moral guide, while still claiming that it is inerrant. You maintain this position even to the point of trivializing slavery as “temporary and local.”
I’m not sure that’s entirely true. For a little background, this site was founded in order to discuss intelligent design creationism. The only other site dedicated to that topic, Uncommon Descent, is run by a person with no commitment to open, honest discussion. Lizzie wanted a place where people are not arbitrarily banned and where comments are not altered or deleted.
IDC is a religious-based political movement. Its goal is to bypass the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that protect public school students from being subject to sectarian dogma in science classes. There is no scientific theory of IDC.
“Lampooning and mocking” is unworthy in a rational discussion where all parties are interacting in good faith with a shared desire to find some approximation to what is true. That does not remotely describe U.S. politics, particularly when Christian fundamentalists are involved. In the political realm, lampooning and mocking ridiculous beliefs like biblical inerrantism can be useful. Certainly it might harden the positions of those holding those beliefs most strongly, but it can also sway those less committed. Not many people are going to be willing to trivialize slavery or insist that clear contradictions simply don’t exist. Lampooning and mocking gives the non-fundamentalists social permission to think and act differently from their co-religionists.
Not fifthmonarchyman, nor many of the fundamentalists among whom I grew up.
In order to be interpreted correctly by whom and for what purpose? The passage very clearly states that people can be inheritable property. It explicitly sanctions a horrific practice. The only interpretation necessary is that the bible is not a good source of morality.
The issue in this discussion is that fifthmonarchyman insists on biblical inerrancy and refuses to directly address the evil that is sanctioned by his holy book. He even disparages slavery as “temporary and local”, far less important than rules about women’s menstrual cycles. If he simply said “The bible is wrong where it sanctions slavery.” the discussion would be over. Instead he tries to excuse it.
Some of us don’t consider owning people for any period of time to be acceptable. The idea that it is only “temporary and local” demonstrates how religion can destroy empathy and common decency.
The only alternative an omniscient, omnibenevolent god could come up with was slavery? Heck, Keanu Reeves managed to articulate the vastly more moral “Be excellent to each other!” and he’s not even a good actor.
I accidentally put Patrick on “ignore” when in fact I was attempting to respond to him
How to I reverse that mistake?
Yeah, other societies did just fine without the very idea of slavery.
Click top right where it says Howdy, click ‘Ignore comments’ on the left toolbar, click to unignore.
OK – fixed
All ancient societies had some version of servitude. Of all the alternatives, the Israelite version was the least harsh and in fact, often preferable from a servant’s POV, as opposed to striking out on their own… preferable to servitude in a 19th Century English manor it would appear. On the subject of “empathy and common decency” In Merry England, decrepit servants could be discarded at will with no further obligation from the master’s part – not so in ancient Israel where obligations from master to servant were far more enlightened.
ITMT – servitude as defined by the Hebrew Testament was an on-going work in progress that became ever more beneficent.
So really – I fail to understand what the problem is… in any case we are rehashing.
To be interpreted correctly by those faithful seeking guidance. And really, that’s the point of all religions and their documents. That some people corrupt the message and/or get entangled in absurd details doesn’t invalidate the intent or the community bonding that comes from an honest and humble approach.
I personally don’t hate religion in general. I gave it up because it no longer offers any guidance to me and because I don’t much care for the people involved in it where I live, but the latter is purely a local phenomenon.
Be that as it may, I think what Tom is getting at is that we are tilting at windmills in trying to point out the absurdity of FMM’s/Phoodoo’s/Erik/et al’s stance on the bible when they represent such a minute fraction of biblical use and understanding and since our caricatures of “inerrant” interpretation are really no more accurate than the interpretations we’re mocking.
True, but in thinking about this, the question arises: what could possibly come out of beating this horse for so long here? Is FMM’s perspective going to change? No. Is ours? Not likely. So where’s this lead?
Tom,
It’s clearly painful for you to admit this, but you made a basic and obvious error. You wrote:
That is not true, because as Leviticus 25:44-46 shows, foreigners and children of foreigners could be owned permanently, no “extenuating circumstances” required:
The source of your error was that you confused the laws applying to Israelite slaves with those applying to non-Israelite slaves. It’s the exact mistake that the expert you cited, Reuven Hammer, warns against here:
You mixed up the two, but your cited expert correctly maintains the distinction, just as the Biblical text does. Reuven Hammer got it right, Tom, and you didn’t.
When your own “expert witness” confirms your mistake, isn’t it time to come clean?
AMEN!
Expressed far more eloquently than I could manage… thank you!
Speak of the devil – the irony of our cross-posting is palpable.
I already answered your question and rebutted your erroneous contention. All explained (yet again) here:
The relevant bit starts with the lines:
Basta!
The issues that I’m trying to address are:
1) The bible clearly sanctions slavery, including treating people as inheritable property.
2) The fact that other societies at the time may have treated (Israelite) slaves more harshly doesn’t excuse the practice.
3) fifthmonarchyman has attempted to argue that the bible doesn’t sanction slavery, despite myself and several others quoting the passages that clearly and explicitly do so.
4) fifthmonarchyman has attempted to trivialize the practice as “temporary and local.”
The bottom line is that the bible fails miserably as a source of moral guidance.
@Keiths
I am breaking up my answers into smaller and easier to digest sound bites.
again – I repeat:
ITMT – please study carefully what Robin just said:
Where does any of the discussion on this or any other internet forum lead?
I’m choosing to call fifthmonarchyman out on his reprehensible views and point out the evil supported by his “good book.” Perhaps you’re right and it changes nothing. Nonetheless, I am showing him that at least one person doesn’t sanction his immoral positions.
The less socially acceptable fundamentalist religion becomes, the better off we all will be. That happens one person at a time.
you need to define your terms – I do not understand the Hebrew Testment’s version of indentured servitude to be “slavery” in a real sense of the word
I think you are missing the point – British/American contract/tort law did not exist in the ancient world. Halakha of the day was a beneficent step in the right direction and eagerly embraced by bondsmen of the day. Is today’s welfare state better? Not to hear Trump tell it, but yeah I agree with you.
Why do we agree that today is better? Because we are in agreement on “first principles”… “first principles” I may add which are explicitly stated for the first time in the Hebrew Testament.
fifthmonarchyman is ignorant and represents such a small and bizarre cultish sect of what he wants to call Christianity – he really merits no more attention from the likes of us.
Well how about that – even a broken clock is correct (well almost), twice a day!
Rubbish! The imperatives of our moral obligations towards widows, orphans, the destitute not to mention “strangers in our midst” continue to inspire righteousness even today…. and that is just for starters. (Remember what I just said about “first principles”) The devil (nyuck nyuck nyuck) is in the details!
Out of curiosity, did you ever hear of William Wilberforce? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
Tom,
When even your cited expert contradicts you, it’s time to face the truth: you’ve made a fundamental mistake. That you’re deeply embarrassed does not change that fact.
Not only does Hammer warn against your exact mistake, which is to confuse the laws applying to Israelite slaves with those applying to non-Israelite slaves, he explicitly notes that non-Israelite slaves were slaves forever, even citing Leviticus 25:44-46!
The Google book preview ends there, but it's enough. Hammer got it right, Tom. You didn't.
Good grief! 🙂
Robin,
It isn’t “a minute fraction”, Robin. It’s huge (Gallup, 2014):
In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins
Tom,
I see you obliquely referenced the Cathars with “kill them all…”. Is the development and destruction of that “heresy” and the related Bogomil sect something that interests you?
Fair point. I guess I just think that some discussions are more productive (or at least, less repetitive dead ends) than others.
I think you and others are definitely demonstrating such, but not to him…
Ok.
Well, it worked for tobacco!
I think the problem is when groups claim religious authority for oppressive actions such as attempting to control the information made available to children at school. Being proactive in opposing such actions by all leagl means is to be encouraged and supported.
But to persuade one person to turn from fundamentalism requires communication with them.
You’ve already noted that certain groups were treated differently under biblical law. The fact that those rules do allow a human being to be considered inheritable property means that they sanction slavery by any reasonable definition.
Allowing people to be inheritable property and permitting them to be beaten so long as they don’t die immediately is not “beneficent”. The bible supports a horrific practice. It is not a good guide for morality.
You, too, trivialize slavery? Perhaps you should experience it for yourself before denigrating the abuse suffered by others.
Any book that sanctions slavery, not to mention misogyny, anti-homosexual bigotry, and other evils should not be held up as any kind of a moral guide.
Both abolitionists and slavers used the bible to justify their beliefs. The explicit sanction of slavery made it easy for the latter.
Keith, this is a shining example of a non-sequitur. 4 in 10 Americans believing God created humans 10,000 years ago is not the same thing as FMM’s/Phoodoo’s/Erik/et al’s stance on the bible. Heck, they don’t even agree with one another on a variety of points.
The point is, 42% of Americans believing in special human creation says little about their particular understanding of the bible or how it should be read and whether it is inerrant. And certainly it says nothing about whether arguing about the bible’s stance on slavery on a message board with a fundamentalist is going to change any other Christian’s (or Jew’s or Muslim’s or…) view on the bible as a whole.
But even if we expand Tom’s issue to include all Christian’s with dubious beliefs based on the bible that’s still a minority of Christians and bible readers overall, so his point still holds on that alone. Couple that with the fact that this is a discussion on a rather obscure (by most measures) Internet message board with three religious non-authorities and the point is more than made: other than ruining the paint on the wooden walls of some windmills, what exactly do you think this is doing to that odd/erroneous biblical interpretation?
Robin,
You were talking about inerrantists:
Creationists are inerrantists and inerrantists are not “a minute fraction” of believers. YECs actually believe in a seven-day creation as described in Genesis. That is not a “caricature of inerrant interpetation” — it’s a fact.
To see how bad it still is, consider this result from another Gallup poll. In 2014, 28% of respondents agreed with this statement:
28 percent! That’s almost a third.
I certainly consider the bible to be a moral guide. It is actually quite good at presenting questions of ethics and morality. I find it unlikely to be the work of a deity and unlikely to represent laws laid down by a deity.
The only message I get from the discussion of slavery in the bible is that the bible seems to reflect cultural patterns from more than one era and is not perfectly consistent in tone. There seems to be a simultaneous acknowledgement of the institution and some regret or uneasiness (based on the time limits and such).
For those who wish to emphasize the humanitarian aspects of the institution, I would like to ask about children inheriting their status as slaves. What is that about?
Actually my reference to inerrant there is regarding our caricature of such readings, but that was not a reference to FMM’s or Erik’s stance. That’s why it’s in quotes; our caricature reflects a rather inaccurate take on a broad inclusion of Christian’s readings of the bible. However, FMM and Erik have both stated to belong to subsets of inerrant readers (FMM has stated specifically to be RT Fundamentalist, which is a really small faction of Christianity these days. Erik has eluded to a similar stance, though not stated it outright as far as I can tell. Phoodoo has not stated any overt association, but has stated he does not necessarily agree with everything from RT. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.)
Not all inerrantists are creationists. Roman Catholics are biblical inerrantists, but the Catholic Church does not hold to creationism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
Further, not all inerrantists hold to the same interpretations. For example, nearly all YECs are inerrantists, but there are also many OEC that are inerrantists as well, but not all OECs are inerrantists.
YEC is a minute fraction of biblical use and understanding. And while simply stating that, “YECS actually believe in a seven-day creation as described in Genesis” might not be a caricature of YEC, stating, “creationists are inerrantists” is.
That may be, but neither FMM’s statements nor the comments back to him from the peanut gallery necessarily represent the views of those 28%. The point is, there are many, many, many factions of “Christian inerrantists” who hold that A) the bible is the Word of God and B) should be taken literally. Even among that 28%, “literally” is a sliding scale term:
https://bible.org/article/taking-bible-literally
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8344/what-does-it-mean-to-interpret-the-bible-literally
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html
Just a few differing stances. So really, the whole 28% (“That’s almost a third!”) is a caricature as well. It does not reflect the nuanced understanding of “literal” different Christians have.